Stuff

YouGov’s latest voting intention figures in the Times this morning are CON 42%(+2), LAB 28%(nc), LDEM 8%(nc), UKIP 12%(-1), GRN 3%(-1). The changes since last week are not significant in themselves, but push the Conservatives to a fourteen point lead, the largest from YouGov since November 2009.

It looks very much as if Theresa May is still enjoying a honeymoon as Tory leader (though the Tories may also be being aided by the disarray in the Labour party – it is impossible to disentangle one potential cause from the other).

I guess we have a difference of emphasis and either naivety on your part or paranoia on mine!

You say “job done” as regards Corbyn moving the direction and emphasis of the party but I think there is still a level of uncertainty over this and there’s still a very big question over whether the right of the party would accept Owen Smith or just see him as a stepping stone to move the party further back to the right. It’s not like we’ve had any stirring speeches from Benn, Philips, Eagle etc to suggest they would get behind a Smith manifesto as presented.

It’s unpredictable what the result of a Smith win would be. One repercussion might be further divisions with both right and left in the party seeing this as a reason to continue their civil war. There might be a significant number of new members resigning and a feeling of disillusionment. There might even be support and pressure for a good old fashioned trot hunt. It is equally possible that all parties can live with the compromise unity candidate.

I guess it’s also unpredictable what a Corbyn win would mean. We may have defections, we may have deselections, continued division and sniping but we may have an acceptance that a civil war has been lost and an unwillingness to continue to fight a losing battle that risks your job at the end of it.

“What annoys me about your posts @ Alec is that if Corbyn makes any mistakes then he is unelectable but other politicians are allowed to make mistakes, change their opinions, be dishonest but that is somehow preferable.”

I could possibly reply ‘what annoys me about your posts is that you misrepresent other people’s post that disagree with you’.

I could also possibly reply with ‘what annoys me about your posts is that if Smith/Blairites/Anyone opposed to Corbyn makes any mistakes then they are unelectable but Corbyn is allowed to make mistakes, change his opinions, be dishonest but that is somehow preferable.”

Of course, I wouldn’t post either of those replies, but I would point out that I supported Corbyn in 2015 and after that, was highly critical of the Blairite MPs who stood up the day after the local elections and claimed Labour had performed disastrously (even before the results were in) and was also highly critical of the nature and timing of the coup after the Brexit vote.

I would also point out that Corbyn’s hasn’t just made a couple of minor mistakes. Right from his acceptance speech, he has failed to function as a leader, and he has made repeated errors of judgement, policy and media handling.

Everyone makes mistakes now and then, but it’s the cumulative nature of Corbyn’s failings that are the problem. I personally believe that this is a perfectly valid stance to take, and is one shared by a fair number of his former supporters.

One other point about Corbyn’s unelectability is his history. In many ways I admire people like Ken Livingstone who talked to the IRA way before it was fashionable, and Corbyn, who has tried to maintain bridges with some pretty nasty groups in the Middle East.

Ultimately, for any sense of peace to arise in conflict zones, someone needs to have been in a dialogue with the violent groups. Corbyn has done this, and in some ways this is to his credit. It is also greatly damaging to have a front bencher, let alone leader, carrying such baggage. I suspect Corbyn’s record on defence of foreign policy issues will be mercilessly exploited at the GE and it will be a serious and probably terminal handicap to Labour as a whole.

You might be annoyed at this, but read carefully what I have just said, and you might understand that while I accept and admire Corbyn’s honesty and integrity on this issue, it is still perfectly logical of me to view this element of his career as an electoral liability.

It pains me to say it but the centrist candidate was also the only female candidate. Its difficult to make judgments on the significance of second preferences when quite a few of her voters were possibly voting for her gender rather than her politics

Luciana Berger has lost out against a Corbyn candidate in the mayoral elections. If she stands as an Independent or another party candidate against a Corbyn candidate in the GE will she suffer the same fate? Was resigning from the Shadow Cabinet a wise move? I wouldn’t be surprised if she is considering her career options.

@Shevii – I agree. A Smith result would be very interesting to watch. In fact, I might rather enjoy the aftermath, seeing the Blairites and centrists forced to accept their nomination as leader taking them leftwards. If he proved to be a competent leader, it would be even funnier watching them try to find excuses as to why they needed to get rid of their own man.

Who knows what might happen – I suspect we never will get the chance to find out.

Also – “I guess it’s also unpredictable what a Corbyn win would mean. We may have defections….”

Given the panic that is setting in within the PLP, I suspect a typo – surely you mean ‘defecations…’

@Alec
” Corbyn has done this, and in some ways this is to his credit. It is also greatly damaging to have a front bencher, let alone leader, carrying such baggage.”

I think people are seeing through this type of hypocrisy. You do the right thing but the media will spin it as bad so you cant be leader. The answer is to get rid off the media not the right person. The media is realising this because people are no longer reliant on MSM. The Guardian even had an article concerned about people disregarding the conventional means of getting their news.

As someone outside the Labour ‘tent’ I find it interesting to hear Corbyn described as having ‘honesty and integrity’.

He comes across as a raging hypocrite to me – someone who rocked the boat constantly himself but complains endlessly about others doing the same now that he is steering it…

There is a very real case to be made for a form of modern left-wing politics, but each time (which isn’t vey often!) that I have heard Corby speak on TV he is all wrapped up in 1970-80’s rhetoric that I – and many like me I suspect – find highly off-putting.

It’s bad enough having Brexit dragging us back to the early seventies, I don’t want to have the same from the Labour party…

I believe the best person for the job should get the post so it doesn’t concern me at all that a female candidate lost out. There are plenty of capable females out there but sometimes the female picked in all sorts of jobs is not the most capable which I find more of a concern.

@Alec I have always regarded you as the man who is always right. (Roger Mexico you may or may not be glad to hear shares this dubious honour). I am still of this opinion and agree with every word of your last post. That said, you seem of late to have had a slight change of personality and whereas previously you were somehow above the fray and only once under the provocation of some well deserved alcohol joined in it, you now join in with vigour and mix it with the best.

Irrespective of that would you agree that a) whatever his defects Corbyn is going to elected b) he has been trapped into this position by the very bad behaviour of some Labour MPs and the Labour central apparatus c) he and his more centrist rivals are both unelectable on their own and probably even in coalition with each other d) the central need is for the identification of a few core planks on which all branches of the labour party and probably others (Greens, Lib Dems, Scot Nat) agree e)this also requires the parking of issues such as nuclear disarmament on which people do not agree.

On the latter I personally regard the use of nuclear weapons as morally unacceptable in all circumstances. That said, there is nothing morally exemplary about getting rid of them unilaterally. Their invention cannot be wished away and as soon as their use becomes a possibility everyone is going to start making them as fast as they can. So a statement (true enough) that we cannot afford to renew trident and wish to negotiate its use away or internationalise it in some way might be enough to get some agreement. Similar compromises would need to be struck on other contentious issues such as nationalisation. There’s enough to be getting on with without quarrelling and fortunately polls can be help in determining what the practical things on which to concentrate might be.

@Lizh – I wouldn’t see this as hypocracy – but maybe I didn’t explain myself properly. It isn’t necessarily the ‘right’ thing to do, to talk to people who are actively killing civilians, but it is something that someone has to do at some point if we are ever to have peace.

Because of the morally dubious context of talking to warmongers while they are waging a very dirty war, I don’t think that this is a task compatible with future leadership.

It is a difficult issue, however.

@Bigfatron – I find the rerun of the 1980’s a little off putting too. ‘Nationalisation’ is taken as an off the peg cure all (both candidates, it seems) but in reality it wasn’t that great. Good in some ways, bad in others.

In the intervening years, there are new legal and social structures, and a whole branch of community enterprise that didn’t really exist in the 1980’s. There are many far more imaginative ways to run public services that don’t mean privatisation and equally aren’t old fashioned state led nationalisation. I’m not really hearing any thoughts on this, despite the fact that I suspect there is a ready audience out there for a more thought through message.

@Lizh & cmj
“How can this be? Corbyn and his people are unelectable.”
As in all elections, it depends on the electorate.

When this site discussed polls (before the general election and the referendum) it used to analyse the make-up of different polling companies’ samples, the demographics, the turnout %s etc in minute detail.
Now it discusses who has politically ‘won’ in actual elections, and conflates the electorates: numbers of MPs, numbers of members, numbers of members voting, general population ‘results’, polls etc with gay abandon and a considerable degree of confusion or obfuscation.
It is now quite possible for lots of statements, counter statements and “rebuttals” all to be true (or false) all at once.
One classic was the 42% UKIP Council win on a by-election turnout of about a quarter of the original election, which could have been achieved with no actual increase in UKIP votes at all.

‘There are many far more imaginative ways to run public services that don’t mean privatisation and equally aren’t old fashioned state led nationalisation. I’m not really hearing any thoughts on this, despite the fact that I suspect there is a ready audience out there for a more thought through message.’

That is pretty much what James Meadway, John McDonnell’s economic advisor, said in his recent speech in Sofia. They are looking at all sorts of forms of democratic ownership… in part (because as Carfew has often said) nationalised industries are too easily privatised by future governments. In any event, the term ‘nationalised’ has always covered a diversity of different configurations.

As everyone has been pointing out honesty is a perceived thing. I won’t believe someone is honest just because the polls say so. I perceive Corbyn as a very honest politician and while Owen Smith comes across as dishonest to me. You might perceive the exact opposite. I can accept that but it won’t change the way I intend to vote. We all have our own beliefs and act accordingly.

DAVE @Lizh & cmjAs in all elections, it depends on the electorate.
When this site discussed polls (before the general election and the referendum) it used to analyse the make-up of different polling companies’ samples, the demographics, the turnout %s etc in minute detail.

Quite so, but since UK GE 2015 the polls have been relatively few and far between. With the silly season in full swing, why are you surprised that most of the discussion here currently is what parties will or won’t do?

The thing that surprises me is that there is little discussion or even consideration of what other parties’ problems are.

The Cons have a new leader, but how will her MPs react to whatever Brexit means Brexit turns out to be?

If it’s code for EEA or Cameron’s renegotation “plus”, will that give UKIP a major boost? Will it result in ritual slaughter of the Chevening three? If it’s “hard” Brexit, will the “wets” split the party?

Will the LD’s be reborn in England with a “rejoin” campaign?

Will NI accept a “hard” border in an NI only referendum to accept or reject their changed status?

Will ITV or C4 be brave enough to produce a more balanced and less anglocentric version of the BBC’s Brexit: The Battle for Britain?

@”Just completed a you gov survey about who I’m going to vote for in the LP leadership election and my opinion of both candidates.”

Wonder if this is it?:-

“We do know that YouGov had a LAB members’ poll in the field over the weekend so it makes sense to assume that this is it.
Owen Smith team need to publish actual poll rather than just brief journos. If JC really below 50% then actual data would have big impact.
My reading of the Eaton Tweet with its emphasis on the don’t knows means that the Smith share is much lower than Corbyn’s.”

Well, the whole Brexit thing rather leaves me wanting to dive into something more certain and productive like, I dunno, trying to do a poll with a representative sample on a budget, or trying to weed out the entryists and closet Tories from Labour’s new membership, or trying to weed them out of the Labour MPs, etc. etc…

…but I know some of youse like nothing better, so here’s summat in today’s Times for ya!!

“Europe’s biggest countries are demanding that Britain continues to accept unlimited migration if it wants a free-trade deal with the single market.

In a survey by the financial news organisation Bloomberg, the 27 other EU members revealed their requirements, which will be put forward in negotiations.

Several countries, including Germany, Portugal and the Czech Republic, say that Britain must accept freedom of movement in return for single market access. France may be ready to go further and link free movement to Braitain’s ambition of keeping the “passporting rights” that let banks sell services in the EU, the survey found.”

Anyways, a list of “What they want…

Ireland. To stop a hard border with Northern Ireland and avoid tariffs

Denmark and France. Reciprocal access for fishermen to their waters

Spain. Joint Sovereignty over Gibraltar

Austria. Stop subsidies for Hinkley Point

Malta. Access to British specialist hospitals and Universities

Italy. relocation of UK-based institutions, such as Euorpean Banking Authority

“The thing that surprises me is that there is little discussion or even consideration of what other parties’ problems are.”

————-

Thing is, there’s a ready-made, prefab narrative to hang all the Corby stuff onto, the whole Militant thing of the eighties etc., a rich set of memes to plunder, a variable smorgasbord of cliches to mine, from Trots and entryism to purges and the issue of electability vs. purity, and so on.

Whereas there’s not quite the same rich tapestry for Theresa and the Tories*. (There was to some extent for Bullingdons, but it was kinda considered off-limits…)

I’m constantly struggling as to why freedom of movement is such a big issue for the EU in relation to the UK. I absolutely see why we need to operate the same employment/health and safety rules otherwise it potentially gives one country an advantage if they wish to undercut another with lower standards.

But with freedom of movement (ie freedom to work) I don’t especially see why the EU is that bothered if their citizens can’t automatically work in the UK and UK citizens can’t work in the EU or that both sides can pick and choose. I don’t see any competitive disadvantage for EU countries and the reasons seem philosophical/political rather than economic.

In many ways I’d regard standardisation of Corporation Tax to prevent the undercutting that already goes on as a much more important trading consideration.

We can probably give Greece a cast iron assurance that we will not prevent any holidaymakers from travelling to Greece. So that’s one demand off the list :-)

” Duke of Westminster dies” Hard to believe this made headline news I mean WoW Jesus Christ of Barnstable!!….. I would love to see polling on who has actually heard of this stiff upper lip toff.

Anyway far more importantly….Apparently Trump has hinted at assassinating crooked Hillary…and to think we all thought a brick being chucked through Angela Eagles constituency office window was box office stuff.

The EU are trying to impose freedom of movement on the UK post Brexit not for financial gains but for political reasons. They know the immigration strand that ran right through the heart of the Brexit campaign was key to Brexit winning.

The EU want to punish the UK for dumping them and they will use the freedom of movement as a political weapon because they know the majority of British people boke at the idea of continued mass immigration into the UK and what better way to get back at them.

“The EU want to punish the UK for dumping them and they will use the freedom of movement as a political weapon ”

We should just tell the EU to go and take a long walk off a short pier, and make a direct approach of zero-tariff trade to each of the 27 countries separately.

i really can’t see why this whole ‘free movement’ is necessary. I went to Sainsbury’s this morning to get some shopping, and I don’t remember entering into any obligation to allow any of their staff to come and live in my house.

As I understand it free movement of labour was one of the fundamental freedoms of the common market. It seems to me to be a capitalist kind of idea – capital should be able to go where it is most efficiently deployed and labour ditto. Free movement of labour then became free movement of people which is a rather different idea and gives you right to stay on when unemployed bring your family etc. So I imagine that they don’t want to give up these things because they regard them as fundamental to their association which would be put at risk if people could just cherry pick them at will. Again as I understand it Norway and Switzerland have both been expected to accept free movement of people and I don’t think anyone has particularly wanted to punish them.

I would emphasise that this is my understanding. My knowledge of the EU and of economics is extremely thin

Surprised no comment on that GMB poll. The only union so far to have a full consultative ballot, and Smith wins by a decisive margin.

After that post from @Charles, I am beginning to wonder, as a matter of hours after I post about Smith going after the affiliate vote and pondering what union members think of Corbyn, up pops this result with a pretty crushing verdict on the incumbent.

This will be much needed manna for the Smith campaign, but to invert @Laszlo’s unproven assertion that PLP members are representative of the population at large, I would have thought that it’s more likely GMB members are a closer reflection of potential Labour voters, untestable though that is.

I have a suspicion that this may give some undecided Labour members cause for thought.

“We should just tell the EU to go and take a long walk off a short pier, and make a direct approach of zero-tariff trade to each of the 27 countries separately”
______

That’s the way I would want to see proceeding proceed but it’s the EU we are dealing with and they are fixated with mass migration.

BTW I was in Sainsbury’s Holborn head office today. I have admit there was quite a bit of talent floating about and would be welcome to come back to my house but of course me being the professional that I am I kept those thoughts to myself. ;-)

Indeed, and had it lacked endless repetition that would have been great. All I’m suggesting is that there are other political topics which could have been explored.

Re May, for example, I wouldn’t have expected her to have studied the Belfast Agreement, but I would have expected her to have had a flunky provide her with an idiot’s guide to it before coming out with her “no return to borders of the past” statement. The fact that none of the media hacks were aware of the terms of that agreement was merely a demonstration of how hopeless even the supposedly unbiased media hacks are.

Nobody has asked her to date whether she planned to make any changes in the border and, if so, what steps she plans to take re the Belfast Agreement’s it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people.

Of course, she wouldn’t have given an answer but at least we would have more sophisticated dithering over what Brexit means Brexit means.

Some pretty dark stuff in that link from @Robin at 1.18pm if you read down the full spread of online exchanges. Appalling, in some places.

This afternoon, Tom Watson writes to Corbyn with ‘evidence’ of infiltration from members of banned parties. Most of this, from the reports, falls into the potentially worrying category, rather than proven infiltration, although some of it should be readily refutable if untrue, such as the allegation that a banned ex Labour member is organising Corbyn’s phonebank operation.

However, Watson included a quote from the old Militant guide to infiltrating Labour, which stated – “Make the event adversarial. Uncomradely questions to sitting councillors and the MP, challenging the chair’s method and motive, defining the politics of the speaker before they have defined their own.

“This behaviour basically reduces the attendance of the remaining sensible types. Then the meeting [is] ours to control.”

Reading @Robin’s link in full, and hearing and seeing evidence from elsewhere, I can really see the point that Watson is making.

Delighted to see that BZ has suggested some other things for us to talk about…

The Cons have a new leader, but how will her MPs react to whatever Brexit means Brexit turns out to be?
Delivery and presentation will be a more important factor than the flavour of Brexit. If the ministers involved manage to exude an air of competence she’ll probably avoid a major defeat. Tories, even – perhaps particularly – the pro-EU sort, are pragmatists. The pressure will be the backroom kind, whilst the deal is being done. We’ll get an idea of how good May is at party management from how much seeps into the public domain. There are others better placed than me to comment on the connections and interpersonal skills of the relevant people (the chief whip? Tory party chair? the chair of 22 committee?)

If it’s code for EEA or Cameron’s renegotation “plus”, will that give UKIP a major boost?
Possibly. More interesting is whether other parties start making the argument that we’d better off as members. UKIP making a noise from other direction might give them ‘cover’ to start criticising the settlement as poor value (it’s hard to see how soft Brexit can be anything but poor value).

Will it result in ritual slaughter of the Chevening three?
Absolutely no idea.

If it’s “hard” Brexit, will the “wets” split the party?
No. They’re pragmatists. Tories routinely elide the interests of the Tory party with the interests of the country and they’ll decide that it’s better for both to avoid a split. Doesn’t mean they’ll give up. My bet is that pro-EU Tories will be doing as much as they possibly can behind the scenes to make it clear to important European colleagues and stakeholders that they want a constructive relationship and are willing to find ways to undo the effects of Brexit. The party will make the appropriate noises about respecting the verdict of the people, but there will be plenty of powerful, establishment figures who have no intention of letting democracy stand in the way of what they consider to be the country’s interests. They’ll dig in and play a long game if necessary.

Will the LD’s be reborn in England with a “rejoin” campaign?
Most unlikely. I don’t think they have the credibility to be a repository for an ‘Anything but Brexit’ vote after caving in on tuition fees and negotiating such an appallingly bad coalition deal. There is also the question of how salient Brexit will be as an issue at the next GE. Precent suggests it won’t be a vote-determining issue for very many voters, but precedent probably isn’t worth much.

Will NI accept a “hard” border in an NI only referendum to accept or reject their changed status?
Don’t know enough about NI politics to comment, beyond saying that as things stand they won’t be able to choose the status quo. Who knows how politicians might spin the options come a referendum?

Will ITV or C4 be brave enough to produce a more balanced and less anglocentric version of the BBC’s Brexit: The Battle for Britain?
Didn’t see this. Surely there’s scope for a programme looking at the similarities and differences in the perspectives and interests of the four ‘home nations’?